How to use CPPUnit effectively?

[Hooyoo]

How to use CPPUnit effectively?
When I want to use CPPUnit, I always fint it useless and waste my time.
I think that's mainly
because I don't know how to use CPPUnit effectively. So if somebody
here has some experience,
please share it to me.
And also I expect answers to these questions:
1. Should I write test codes for every member function of my class? If
not, which function should be tested?
2. What else should I consider apart from checking parameters and
return value?

Thanks.

[Ian Collins]

Hooyoo wrote:

How to use CPPUnit effectively?
When I want to use CPPUnit, I always fint it useless and waste my time.
I think that's mainly
because I don't know how to use CPPUnit effectively. So if somebody
here has some experience,
please share it to me.

Like any other new piece of software, start with the smallest example
that compiles and runs, say a TestFixture with single test.

And also I expect answers to these questions:
1. Should I write test codes for every member function of my class? If
not, which function should be tested?

Write the tests first and the members will be added as you require them.

2. What else should I consider apart from checking parameters and
return value?

Side effects.

--
Ian Collins.

[Phlip]

Hooyoo wrote:

How to use CPPUnit effectively?

Use UnitTest++. It's much leaner and easier to use:

http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/

CppUnit is stuffed with features you won't need, and they often get in the
way of the few you do.

When I want to use CPPUnit, I always fint it useless and waste my time.

Do you still spend a lot of time debugging? Don't you feel _that's_ a little
more useless and wasteful?

I think that's mainly
because I don't know how to use CPPUnit effectively.

You should write tests for each new line (or two) of the code. Never write
new code without a failing test.

If a test fails unexpectedly, use Undo to revert the code back to the last
state where it passed. This simple trick takes care of nearly all debugging.

1. Should I write test codes for every member function of my class? If
not, which function should be tested?

To make the function exist, you need a test. To make its behavior change,
you need another test. And so on.

2. What else should I consider apart from checking parameters and
return value?

Each test case you write, run it first and see if it fails. The test should
fail for the correct reason. Any kind of code could, in theory, pass the
test, so you should then write just enough code to pass. If the code errs,
it should err on the side of simplicity.

Then write another test to force out the error. These tests, together, will
constrain the innards of that function.

The result works as if the test cases all colluded to constrain all the
function's internal lines, though each test case alone is too simple.

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[Binary]

Phlip wrote:

Hooyoo wrote:

How to use CPPUnit effectively?

Use UnitTest++. It's much leaner and easier to use:

http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/

The MS VC project in the zipped source makes me disgusting.

CppUnit is stuffed with features you won't need, and they often get in the
way of the few you do.

When I want to use CPPUnit, I always fint it useless and waste my time.

Do you still spend a lot of time debugging? Don't you feel _that's_ a little
more useless and wasteful?

I think that's mainly
because I don't know how to use CPPUnit effectively.

You should write tests for each new line (or two) of the code. Never write
new code without a failing test.

If a test fails unexpectedly, use Undo to revert the code back to the last
state where it passed. This simple trick takes care of nearly all debugging.

1. Should I write test codes for every member function of my class? If
not, which function should be tested?

To make the function exist, you need a test. To make its behavior change,
you need another test. And so on.

2. What else should I consider apart from checking parameters and
return value?

Each test case you write, run it first and see if it fails. The test should
fail for the correct reason. Any kind of code could, in theory, pass the
test, so you should then write just enough code to pass. If the code errs,
it should err on the side of simplicity.

Then write another test to force out the error. These tests, together, will
constrain the innards of that function.

The result works as if the test cases all colluded to constrain all the
function's internal lines, though each test case alone is too simple.

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[Gianni Mariani]

Binary wrote:

Phlip wrote:

>Hooyoo wrote:

>>How to use CPPUnit effectively?

Use UnitTest++. It's much leaner and easier to use:

http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/

The MS VC project in the zipped source makes me disgusting.

I resemble that remark.

[Phlip]

Binary wrote:

> http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/

The MS VC project in the zipped source makes me disgusting.

I'm sure you already were. However...

The authors are quite proud to support various other compilers, including
those targeting embedded platforms.

Or did you expect the project to ship with no project files of any kind?
Don't get me started about Autoconf and the abattoir of eternal torture that
is the Makefile format(s)...

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

[Gianni Mariani]

Phlip wrote:

Binary wrote:

>> http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/

The MS VC project in the zipped source makes me disgusting.

I'm sure you already were. However...

The authors are quite proud to support various other compilers, including
those targeting embedded platforms.

Or did you expect the project to ship with no project files of any kind?
Don't get me started about Autoconf and the abattoir of eternal torture that
is the Makefile format(s)...

HEY - make is beautiful. I use it with MakeXS (I really have to put
that web page back up) but a copy comes with Austria C++.

autoconf on the other hand, well it surprises me just how much it is used.

As for MS project files, they're a disaster as well, if you have a large
number of project files, its very hard to maintain them.

[Noah Roberts]

Phlip wrote:

Binary wrote:

http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/

The MS VC project in the zipped source makes me disgusting.

I'm sure you already were. However...

The authors are quite proud to support various other compilers, including
those targeting embedded platforms.

Or did you expect the project to ship with no project files of any kind?
Don't get me started about Autoconf and the abattoir of eternal torture that
is the Makefile format(s)...

Shrug... at least they work on more than one platform/compiler
combination.

[ralph]

Binary wrote:

The MS VC project in the zipped source makes me disgusting.

That's interesting. I looked at the MS VC project. Then I looked in a
mirror. Seems like the project doesn't have any effect on me.

[ralph]

Hooyoo wrote:

How to use CPPUnit effectively?
When I want to use CPPUnit, I always fint it useless and waste my time.
I think that's mainly
because I don't know how to use CPPUnit effectively. So if somebody
here has some experience,
please share it to me.

This group is about C++. It seems that you don't understand what unit
tests are about. So I'd like to recommend a very good book about unit
testing to you:

Kent Beck: Test Driven Development. By Example. Addison Wesley.

This book isn't about CPPUnit. It isn't even about C++. It uses Java
and JUnit for its examples. But it is very well written and the example
code is very easy to understand.

And also I expect answers to these questions:
1. Should I write test codes for every member function of my class? If
not, which function should be tested?
2. What else should I consider apart from checking parameters and
return value?

You will find the answers to these non-C++-related questions in the
book I recommended.

Thanks.

You're welcome